There is growing evidence that social identity processes play an important role in a range of health outcomes. However, we know little about the nature and effectiveness of interventions that build social identification with the aim of promoting health. In the present research, we systematically review and meta-analyze interventions that build social identification to enhance health and wellbeing. A total of 27 intervention studies were identified (N=2,230). Using random-effects meta-regression, results indicate that social identification-building interventions had a moderate-to-strong impact on health (Hedges g=0.66; 95%CIs[0.34, 0.97]). Analyses revealed significant variation in intervention effectiveness as a function of its type: group-relevant decision making (g=1.26), therapy programs (g=1.03), shared activities (g=0.40), and reminiscence (g=-0.05). By contrast, there was much less variation across health outcomes: quality of life (g=0.81), physical health (g=0.77), self-esteem (g=0.69), well-being (g=0.67), (reduced) anxiety (g=0.61), (reduced) depression (g=0.58), cognitive health (g=0.55), and (reduced) stress (g=0.49). Finally, speaking to the mechanism of the interventions, results suggest that interventions tended to be more effective to the extent that they succeeded in building participants’ social identification with the intervention group. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of social identification-building interventions to foster health and outline an agenda for future research and practical application.

Opening data promises to improve research rigour and democratize knowledge production. But it also presents practical, theoretical, and ethical considerations for qualitative researchers in particular. Discussion about open data in qualitative social psychology predates the replication crisis. However, the nuances of this ongoing discussion have not been translated into current journal guidelines on open data. In this article, we summarize ongoing debates about open data from qualitative perspectives, and through a content analysis of 261 journals we establish the state of current journal policies for open data in the domain of social psychology. We critically discuss how current common expectations for open data may not be adequate for establishing qualitative rigour, can introduce ethical challenges, and may place those who wish to use qualitative approaches at a disadvantage in peer review and publication processes. We advise that future open data guidelines should aim to reflect the nuance of arguments surrounding data sharing in qualitative research, and move away from a universal “one‐size‐fits‐all” approach to data sharing. This article outlines the past, present, and the potential future of open data guidelines in social‐psychological journals. We conclude by offering recommendations for how journals might more inclusively consider the use of open data in qualitative methods, whilst recognizing and allowing space for the diverse perspectives, needs, and contexts of all forms of social‐psychological research.

Objectives: The aims of the present study were to examine tenants’ experiences of a model of integrated health care and supportive housing and to identify whether integrated health care and supportive housing improved self-reported health and healthcare access. Methods: The present study used a mixed-method survey design (n = 75) and qualitative interviews (n = 20) performed between September 2015 and August 2016. Participants were tenants of permanent supportive housing in Brisbane (Qld, Australia). Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Results: Integrated health care and supportive housing were resources for tenants to overcome systematic barriers to accessing mainstream health care experienced when homeless. When homeless, people did not have access to resources required to maintain their health. Homelessness meant not having a voice to influence the health care people received; healthcare practitioners treated symptoms of poverty rather than considering how homelessness makes people sick. Integrated healthcare and supportive housing enabled tenants to receive treatment for health problems that were compounded by the barriers to accessing mainstream healthcare that homelessness represented. Conclusions: Extending the evidence about housing as a social determinant of health, the present study shows that integrated health care and supportive housing enabled tenants to take control to self-manage their health care. In addition to homelessness directly contributing to ill health, the present study provides evidence of how the experience of homelessness contributes to exclusions from mainstream healthcare. What is known about the topic?: People who are homeless experience poor physical and mental health, have unmet health care needs and use disproportionate rates of emergency health services. What does the paper add?: The experience of homelessness creates barriers to accessing adequate health care. The provision of onsite multidisciplinary integrated health care in permanent supportive housing enabled illness self-management and greater control over lifestyle, and was associated with self-reported improved health and life satisfaction in formerly homeless tenants. What are the implications for practitioners?: Integrated health care and supportive housing for the formerly homeless can improve self-reported health outcomes, enable healthier lifestyle choices and facilitate pathways into more appropriate and effective health care.

Background: Young Australians (16-25 years) have the highest rates of past-month cannabis use in the world. Cannabis use increases the risk of alcohol and other drug disorders and depressive disorders, and has a robust dose-response association with psychotic experiences (PEs) and disorders. PEs are subthreshold positive psychotic symptoms, including delusions and hallucinations, which increase the risk of substance use, depressive or anxiety disorders, and psychotic disorders. Access to effective web-based early interventions targeting both cannabis use and PEs could reduce such risk in young people. Objective: The objective of this study is to determine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the Keep it Real web-based program compared to an information-only control website among young cannabis users (16-25 years) with PEs. Methods: Participants are recruited online, and consenting individuals meeting inclusion criteria (aged 16-25 years, who have used cannabis in the past month and experienced PEs in the past 3 months) are automatically randomized to either the Keep it Real web-based program (n=249) or an information-only control website (n=249). Both websites are self-guided (fully automated). The baseline and follow-up assessments at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months are self-completed online. Primary outcome measures are weekly cannabis use, PEs, and the relative cost-effectiveness for quality-adjusted life years. Secondary outcomes include other substance use and related problems, PE-related distress, cannabis intoxication experiences, severity of cannabis dependence, depression/anxiety symptoms, suicidality, and mental well-being and functioning. Results: Recruitment commenced in February 2019, and the results are expected to be submitted for publication in mid-2021. Conclusions: This study protocol describes a large randomized controlled trial of a new web-based program for young cannabis users experiencing PEs. If effective, the accessibility and scalability of Keep it Real could help reduce growing public health concerns about the significant social, economic, and health impacts of cannabis use. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618001107213; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=374800 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/15803